Ellington

This morning I got to the office with an e-mail in my inbox, apparently forwarded to me, from the office of Scott Brown, famously the GOP senator from Massachusetts who took over Edward Kennedy's seat. It's pasted here below the fold. (Presumably it was forwarded to me by an advocacy group against the pipeline or as part of their e-blast system; I get a lot of interesting political e-mail.)

What was interesting to me about this piece, however, is the nuance in the Senator's explanation and argument. Maybe I don't write my CongressCritters often enough to see it, but it's refreshing occasionally to see a reasonable response to something that seems to be nothing but a 24-hour cable soundbite (or Tweet meme) that's hurled back and forth between sides.

I don't fully agree with Senator Brown's assessment -- I think the jobs issue is a red herring, since we could also have a "jobs program" to cut off chunks of the planet and hurl them into space, but that wouldn't be the responsible decision -- but it is refreshing to see it discussed this clearly.

As this New York Times editorial illustrates, the local environmental concerns about the pipeline (as designed it went from Canada to Texas through some protected and sensitive areas) are really not the only area of concern, although it's good to see Senator Brown taking that concern seriously. The other concern -- and perhaps the much more far-reaching one -- is the environmental impact that tar sands extraction has even when compared with other means of crude oil extraction, which we've already identified as part of the problem when it comes to global climate change.

If more people looked at the issue in this way, you really could make some A/B decisions about how something like this would work. The current plan, as submitted, was unworkable. The GOP in the House didn't want Obama to wait on further studies, so they forced his hand with un-related legislative. It appears that he called their bluff by turning down the permit.

Next step, TransCanada will reapply and, hopefully, address the concerns that the Obama Administration (and many other folks) have about this pipeline. (Conservatives in Canada will also rattle their sabers and talk about selling their dirty crude to China, even though they sell 99% of their reserves to the U.S. and... well... China is farther.)

If for no other reason, it illustrates the limits that our media landscape -- particularly the fast-hit nature of broadcast and social media -- impose on intelligent discussion of really important issues.

But it's encouraging to see that even our elected officials get that sometimes... at least when a staffer is forced to stop and write a cogent letter on the topic.

Here's the letter:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the Keystone XL pipeline project. As always, I value your input and strive to keep you updated on the important issues facing us today.

As you may know, TransCanada, a Canadian energy company, filed an application with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline in early 2009. This project would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the United States. The proposed plan includes an extension that would transport oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota.

Since 2009, the State Department has released two separate Environmental Impact Statements to address concerns arising from the pipeline's route through an environmentally sensitive region of Nebraska. After the Administration postponed the decision until 2013, Congress negotiated a February 21, 2012, deadline for the decision as part of the payroll tax extension agreed to in December 2011. As you may know, the Administration adhered to Congress' deadline and decided against issuing a permit to TransCanada on January 19, 2012. Despite rejecting the 2009 permit, the State Department invited TransCanada to reapply with a different routing plan. The Canadian energy company has indicated they intend to accept the offer.

It is my belief that the Keystone XL pipeline is a project worth pursuing, provided that local environmental concerns are adequately addressed. This project will create thousands of jobs at a time when our economy needs to be getting people back to work. In addition to the many construction jobs at stake, if the project does move forward, the United States will be able to reduce its dependence on oil from the volatile Middle East, benefitting domestic industry and jobs, and our national security. Conversely, if we do not build this pipeline, it is clear to me that Canada will continue to develop these petroleum resources and will ship the oil by tanker to nations such as China who have proven their interest in locking down access to petroleum resources.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at http://www.scottbrown.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator

Previous Comments

ID

167109

Comment

That's a hell of a lot more thought out and factual than the horrid lie filled response I received from Sen. Wicker when contacting him in regards to my environmental concerns about KXL. I think I deleted the email, but I recall it was filled with promises of 20,000+ jobs, how Obama's delay is causing the end of America as we know it (ok, maybe a slight hyperbole, but things along that vein), and absolutely nothing about any form of environmental concerns.

Author

awelch1213

Date

2012-02-17T15:03:49-06:00